Video: Ron Paul denounces Israel’s flotilla raid, of course

posted at 9:51 pm on June 3, 2010 by Allahpundit

No surprise here. Remember when he called Operation Cast Lead, which was Israel’s response to thousands of Hamas rocket firings, a case of “preemptive war”?

America’s Greatest Patriot wants you to believe he’s a study in non-interventionist neutrality, with his knocks on Israel a mere function of the fact that we continue to prop them up with foreign aid. Because the U.S. is kinda sorta responsible for their behavior, goes the logic, they’re fair game for criticism. Why he’d want to maintain a posture of neutrality between Israel and an eliminationist outfit like Hamas, I have no idea, but lay that aside. Amoral neutrality doesn’t excuse his use of propaganda — as impartial news sources have noted, Gaza isn’t “starving” — nor does it explain his relentless attempts over the past several years to minimize the threat from Iranian nuclear weapons. It’s one thing to say our Iran policy is making things worse, it’s quite another to pretend that regional war, possibly with a nuclear component, in the Middle East wouldn’t much matter to America if we just hurried up and got our troops out. I can’t tell if this guy doesn’t realize or simply doesn’t care that opening up Gaza’s port will mean more arms in the hands of more fanatics, which means more of a chance of war and thus a more precarious position for U.S. interests. But let this serve as yet another reminder that, for all the grief we give The One on foreign policy, we can do much, much worse. And not just on the left either.

Comments

I’m a huge Ron Paul supporter and wrote him in as president in 2008 but he is WAAAAAAY off on this one.

RightXBrigade on June 3, 2010 at 11:43 PM

You need to learn to be a better judge of character.

You remind me of people who are shocked that Obama, after all the hints he gave regarding his anti-Americanism, has already become the worst President in U.S. history.

The problem with many segments of our population, especially the youth, is that they have very little power of discernment. A return to Christianity is the only real hope we have as a nation in my opinion.

Paul’s evident animus against Israel, combined with his unclear associations with White Supremacist and/or neo-Nazi groups, do tend to point in a particular direction as to his motivations. Not only in this area, but in many, Paul is way yonder out there.
`
~~~~~~~
`
Barack Obama was standing on the White House lawn talking with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and a sane Libertarian. An eagle feather gently floated to the ground between them. Who picked it up?
`
`
`
`
`
`
It had to be Obama, of course, because there ain’t no such thing as Santa Claus, there ain’t no such thing as the Easter Bunny, and there ain’t no such thing as a sane Libertarian.

His son has obviously learned well; cross the Zionists and their unpaid advocates and you won’t get anywhere near the White House. While such a compromise frustrates me, I can hardly blame him for making it in the current political climate.

This is why I can’t Ron Paul seriously. First, if he has a problem with us getting involved in foreign affairs then he should have no problem having NO opinion on…foreign affairs. Instead he makes statements, over and over, that remind us he has trouble grasping reality outside a certain comfort zone.

Why are we overseas? Simple, so we can project both military and political will overseas. It is the doctrine of “kill them there instead of here and break stuff in their backyard” that has made it possible for us not to be fighting Al Qaeda on our southern border.

Paul doesn’t get this and never will. His other blind spot is Israel. Frankly, I think he’s a tad bigoted.

“Paul doesn’t get this and never will. His other blind spot is Israel. Frankly, I think he’s a tad bigoted.”

He wouldn’t have gotten it in 1805 & 1815, either.

Bigoted hell-filth like Paul never do.

The racist genocidal hatred of the Jews by the Palestinians, inculcated by PA CHILDREN’S TV SHOWS, only shows how evil and gas-chamber loving Paul and his minions are. They want the Palestinians to finish the job Hitler started so that they can have their anti-Semitic Holocaust II by proxy.

According to Herr doktor, we shouldn’t intervene – he is a ‘non-interventionist’ after all. Except we should intervene to deal with the “starving” in Gaza? Which is it? Should we or shouldn’t we intervene? Isn’t his whole schtick that once we begin ‘intervening’ in another country, we become ’embroiled’ in their problems?

I like how he calls the duly, democratically elected government in Afghanistan a ‘puppet’. Yet the supposedly, duly democratically elected ‘government’ of Hamas couldn’t possibly be a puppet of Iran?

Sure, we don’t want to get dragged into another Great War fought over nothing really, but do we want to be unprepared like when World War II started?

Got to be a happy medium in there somewhere.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 3, 2010 at 11:46 PM

Let’s keep in mind that WWII was in part an outgrowth of WWI, and the reparations imposed on Germany in its aftermath.

We have a first-class nuclear deterrent. We have an Air Force that can deliver untold non-nuclear munitions anywhere in the world. We have a Navy that can project power anywhere in the world. And we could maintain all of that for a third of what it is costing us to defend the world from itself.

You and I seem to have different ideas of what constitutes “unprepared”.

JohnGalt23 on June 3, 2010 at 11:57 PM

I’m not saying we are unprepared now, and I’d like to see the U.S. keep it that way. What I was saying is that we should never again be in the position where we had a smaller standing army than Belgium in 1940. Even against Japan we had to expand our navy, Marines and army exponentially. I’m not sure we can do that again. At least back then we could produce enough oil and steel just from the U.S. to outfit such a huge military and supply our allies as well.

His son has obviously learned well; cross the Zionists and their unpaid advocates and you won’t get anywhere near the White House. While such a compromise frustrates me, I can hardly blame him for making it in the current political climate.

Dark-Star on June 4, 2010 at 7:15 AM

Exactly, if you’re just promoting the murder and genocide of a people, you could be President; but not against the Jews. That doesn’t work.

You need a different race of people to promote the killing of, and state that they have no right to ever defend themselves… then you can be President. People don’t really hate racism or genocide, but the crafty Zionists stop the genocide of the Jewish people from being a permitted Presidential platform.

How dare they?

… what? you want a /sarc? I’m pretty sure my comment and Dark-Star’s are comparable. We’re both saying the “Zionists” think that letting Israel defend itself and not allow the genocide of it’s people is wrong; which is why Ron Paul won’t be president… and that if it weren’t for these “Zionist” advocates this would be a perfectly acceptable position for a Presidential candidate to take.

(1) has pictures taken with Don Black a well known white supremacist, and his son
(2) there is a picture of Ron Paul signing an autograph for Ron Black’s son, Derek Black.
(3) He accepted donations from a white supremacist group and refused to return the money.
(4) He wrote and or distributed for almost 20 years between 1978 and 1995
(5) his connections with the John Birch Society.
(6) The only person to vote AGAINST the House Resolution to support Iranian dissenters.
(7) A letter from Bill White, a self proclaimed white supremacist, who insist that Ron Paul is a racist.
8. Micheal Medved gave Ron Paul the chance to dismiss all the accusations that he’s a racist and challenged him to distance himself from racist groups…he has never done so.

Given the weight of the ALL the facts, what’s easier to believe…that Ron Paul is a racist or that he’s not?

Considering the fact that the Muslims invaded and conquered the Holy Land by means of military force they have no legitmate claim to the land. The Jews have been there for 4,000 years and the Muslims (not to be confused with Arabs) only since the eighth century and then as a result of real murder and massacre. They have done nothing to improve anyone’s life in the region, indeed, they have introduced an interminable misery. Israel is the only truly civilized nation in the area and are simply living on their own land at great risk. Lebanon used to be a veritable garden spot but Hezbollah saw to that. Everything around Israel is a cesspool of ignorance and filth and if you don’t believe it, do your own research. There is no such place as Palestine and there is no such beast as a Palestinian. Even Arafat was a nasty, malignant little Egyptian ogre. There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza any more than there is in the West Bank. Having said all of that, any coastal incursions by any other nation are simply invasions and should be dealt with accordingly. Find the Palestinians in this short clip:http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

Hey, that’s me! Although, if you do hear about how to become a paid Zionist advocate, let me know. I could totally do that.

stefanite on June 4, 2010 at 8:22 AM

Paid for advocating Zionism, or just getting paid at all? (ie; needing employment)

In all honesty, I will gladly inform you if I learn of an opportunity for either. This economy is going down in flames and politics should play second fiddle to employment. (although some general personal info would be helpful for keeping my eyes peeled for potential jobs)